I’m second to none in praising him on his surge leadership. But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us. Rush Limbaugh has emphatically stated that McCain is not a conservative — and he has more than a few listeners with similar instincts.
Well, if he's a squish on waterboarding and Rush votes him off the island, I guess McCain really is a bed-wetting liberal.
Good Lord. Is this what it's come to? A man who suffered years of torture in a communist prison camp for his country, and returned with honor, and who has taken the standard conservative positions on most big issues of his time, suddenly finds himself cast out of the conservative movement because he doesn't believe in torture, and he doesn't meet the standards of a right-wing talk radio host?
Look, I wouldn't vote for McCain mostly because of his hawkish views on the war and permissive views on immigration. But to say he's not a conservative? Seriously? I understand that many conservatives don't like him. But that doesn't make McCain a liberal.
Do liberals have these kinds of discussions?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"You realize JFK cut taxes in 1963 from 90 to 72% to jumpstart the economy back then and Reagan's tax cuts from 70 to 28% caused revenue to the Treasury to double by the end of the 80's decade? Keeping more of our own money not only creates jobs for others in the private sector, but enables more intact families more disposable income to afford to have a parent at home raising and inculcating their kids with their own values, when they have them--improving society."
"You're not accounting for inflation, Reagan's raising of taxes back to the former levels, or increases in productivity. David Stockman admitted 'supply side economics' was a fraud in 1983, and there's a New Yorker article on him demonstrating it in numbers that no supply sider can refute."
You're also not accounting for the fact that increases in state and local taxes almost entirely balanced, for most taxpayers, the Reagan federal tax cuts, mainly because the benefits provided by the feds with the pre-Reagan federal taxes were deemed sufficiently important that states and localities were required to supply them after the cuts.
"...McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts...Because he thought they were fiscally irresponsible. And that makes him unconservative?" Rod
Of course it does, especially in view of all his other above-mentioned non-con actions. The fact you didn't know that, along with the other non-cons on this board, is very revealing.
But remember that, nevertheless, true Conservatives will vote for him in a heartbeat if he is the Republican nominee, which Dems want him to be because they think his lack of charisma will make him a loser v. Billary.
"Anyway, the Catholic Church, of which you are a communicant, Cleveland, says torture is immoral. Think about that." Rod
Now you are putting words in the mouth of the Church. Nice! Please don't try to tell an orthodox Catholic what the Church teaches about Bush Administration style waterboarding (which has occurred two or three times since the war began). Even our Special Ops guys, who undergo waterboarding in training, say it's not torture. But you non-cons know better than they do.
Now let me riddle you this: What blog owner with the initials R.D. would scream and cry like a madman to have an Islamo-fascist waterboarded ASAP if the blog owner's wife and children were being slowly tortured at an unknown location? Guess it all boils down to who's ox is being gored, huh, Rod.
"Why is favoring campaign finance reform a "liberal" position?" Rod
"My words were "...Feinegold's ugly little anti-free speech during elections bill was passed under the GUISE of campaign reform." Come on, my friend, you're better than that.
"I would be laughed out of town if I called the Journal editorial page [re immigration] 'unconservative.'" Rod
No, Rod, you would be lauded as a true Conservative. Again, very revealing.
BTW, Irenaeus' January 10, 2008 8:35 AM comment speaks for me, too.
"[Re Cleveland's claim that Bush Administration style waterboarding is not torture] I don't remember United States v Sawada, 1946, being overturned." By mystery poster.
No wonder you wouldn't post you name. After WW II, Japanese military and civilian officials were tried for war crimes, including the torture of captured Allied personnel. Among the types of actual torture techniques brought up in the 1946 Sawada trial was a process called the water treatment:
"The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach until he lost consciousness. Pressure was then applied, sometimes by jumping upon his abdomen to force the water out. The usual practice was to revive the victim and successively repeat the process."
Mystery poster, I'm glad you posted. It shows how devious and untrustworthy you liberals can be when it come to your hatred of President Bush. United States v Sawada was about the various, infamous, actual torture methods used by the Japanese.
"Who was I supposed to believe, Rush or my own eyes? And just as patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, so is safety-in-numbers the first refuge of dittoheads..." Scott Lahti
Scott, if it comes down to who I believe--you or Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly and my own experience--you lose, big time. Anti-patriotism also seeks refuge in numbers--just look at the Democrat Party.
"Ora pro nobis peccatoribus." gjoe
I do pray for you, gjoe.
Thanks, Cleveland. I can use all I can get.
Even Laffer, author of the famous Laffer Curve that was long used to justify tax cuts, has recently disowned the idea that cuts in income tax rates will produce more revenue than not cutting income tax rates, et cet.
The Laffer Curve is a myth. There's not a single shred of evidence of it.
Simply because there is no tax revenue at a rate of zero percent, some tax revenue in the middle, and a supposed lack of tax revenue at 100%, although no one's actually tried that, does not mean it followed any sort of 'curve' at all.
It could just as easily been a straight line up to, say, 90%, at which point it plummets to zero. Or, more likely, a line up until it reaches a place where other methods of income are more profitable, and then it zig-zags downward, and heads back up again from there, in a sort of sawtooth pattern. A pattern that changes based on things other than taxes on what we're talking about.
Honest conservatives will 'admit' they're no proof we've past the midpoint on the Laffer Curve, thus they don't know that lowering the tax rate will raise revenue, but that's still total poppycock. There is not a single shred of evidence it even is the bell-shaped curve, with smooth and even slopes down in both directions, that conservatives want it to be.
As a matter of fact, it's fairly obvious the sides can't be a mirror of each other, as on the left side revenue is based perfectly on percentage of income, so rises in a perfectly flat line until, at least, 10%...no one changes their amount of work when taxed at 4% but not at 3%. Whereas on the right side, hypothetically, you have people choosing to less work, so it would fall off as if it's normal distribution, aka, one side of a bell curve. The idea that these two sides, caused by two completely different things, behave anything like each other is crazy wishful thinking, yet every 'Laffer Curve' shows a smooth parabolic arch.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.